Ad hominem can be completely appropriate if you're making a point about someone's character/credibility. I don't know why people think that ad hominem means you should never make arguments "to the man."
In this case, I think he's saying that because these are politically motivated shareholders, a reasoned answer would be lost on them. Cook could have whipped out a lengthy powerpoint full of charts and figures, or he could have done the chicken dance, or whatever ... he's saying the shareholders are not asking the question in good faith.
edit - Further, saying what you would prefer Cook do if you had asked the question isn't entirely relevant, since presumably you would be asking sincerely. Cook can probably tell those guys are only there to yank his chain and make him look foolish, so unsurprisingly he was somewhat hostile in response.
"Very" is a fine word. There's nothing about it that inherently "degrades semantics and syntax." In fact, I think that's probably a meaningless statement. How could it possibly degrade syntax?
It can also be used quite stylishly. Most words can.
I once had a professor who assigned regular essays with a maximum length of one properly formatted page. He was quite demanding, and I think I probably learned more about writing from those than most other multi-page assignments. He was also probably the most brilliant professor I'd had.
I went to Butler University and I struggled much like the Penn student above. Two hospitalizations while there, I believe. Everyone involved there--all the professors I knew, and all the administrators who took on my case--were just exceptionally supportive and kind. They really cared, and they were damned good at what they did. In the end I wouldn't have gotten onto the path of getting better without them--especially my advisor, who intervened in a very personal way that probably took some guts.
Another person suggested small teaching colleges. Seeing as Butler is a 4000-ish person college, maybe there's something to this. But I'd like to think that even in big colleges, the student-health-oriented administrative staff would be on their game. I dunno.
Many "good writing style manual[s]" are kind of full of it.
An interesting bit from the wiki(1) on passive voice: "For example, despite Orwell's advice to avoid the passive, his Politics and the English Language (1946) employs passive voice for about 20 percent of its constructions."
As with anything, it's important to be aware of what you're doing. But back when I tutored people in writing, hard-and-fast rules like this resulted in awkward, contorted writing by scared students. For example, I once knew a very smart person who avoided predicate adjectives at all costs. I don't really blame him for confusing passive voice and predicate adjective. I even found cases where the Hemingway app confused the two. But it was too bad that he had been so thoroughly brainwashed against the passive. Though I kind of admired how he managed to avoid, for years of his life, what I think is an indispensable construction.
In this case, I think he's saying that because these are politically motivated shareholders, a reasoned answer would be lost on them. Cook could have whipped out a lengthy powerpoint full of charts and figures, or he could have done the chicken dance, or whatever ... he's saying the shareholders are not asking the question in good faith.
edit - Further, saying what you would prefer Cook do if you had asked the question isn't entirely relevant, since presumably you would be asking sincerely. Cook can probably tell those guys are only there to yank his chain and make him look foolish, so unsurprisingly he was somewhat hostile in response.